Back or fade a take market

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the currency is test dollars and the payout is pari-mutuel ('winners split the pool'), which clarifies financial behavior. However, it omits whether the stake is deducted immediately, whether the bet can be cancelled (terrace_call_off exists as a sibling), and what the agent receives back.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action, market source, and payout rule front-loaded. Every clause adds information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a mutation-style tool with no output schema and three required params, the description covers purpose, side semantics, and payout economics, but leaves open the commit/irreversibility question and the relationship to terrace_preview_take and terrace_call_off. It is minimally sufficient to call correctly but not fully complete for a wager-placing operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It fully explains the 'side' enum (yes=back, no=fade) and points to terrace_open_takes as the source of the 'market' identifier, but 'stake' is only implied ('put test dollars on') with no unit, minimum, or format guidance to compensate for the exclusiveMinimum constraint.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action (put test dollars on yes/back or no/fade) against a specific resource (an open take market), which is far more concrete than the title alone. It ties the market to the sibling terrace_open_takes, but does not distinguish itself from terrace_preview_take, which is the closest alternative for this operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implicitly tells the agent where markets come from ('from terrace_open_takes') and what the side values mean, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never references terrace_preview_take as a pre-commit check. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.